Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Review

We've just published a review of Panasonic's flagship super-zoom camera, the Lumix DMC-FZ200. The FZ200 goes back to its roots, offering a constant-aperture zoom range, like the FZs of old, but in most other respects it's similar to its well-regarded predecessor the FZ150. Features include a 12MP MOS sensor with a maximum ISO sensitivity of 6400, Raw shooting, and automatic panorama and HDR modes. We collaborated with Jeff Keller of the Digital Camera Resource Page to bring you this review of the FZ200, which includes plenty of studio and real-world testing, and a 48-image samples gallery.

Comments

I also agree with almost all of the comments, I really like this camera especially at the price point. It was $297 everywhere around Black Friday, I missed that one but did get one for $350, darned good price for this.

I keep seeing snippets about new firmware, is there in fact a new firmware, I'm on V 1.0, I almost never see a version, almost 2 years old that doesn't get replaced at some point. There is nothing on the US site or the International site either.

Have a look at the (reputable) reviews on the internet and you will find that the Panasonic FZ200 is the best bridge camera currently available. It is by no means perfect, but incorporating everything that is suggested in the comments below, will increase the price drastically.You cannot compare the FZ200 with a DSLR or a "prosumer" compact with a larger sensor such as the G15. Its like comparing apples with pears!Show me a camera with a 1/2.3" sensor and at least a 600mm reach that performs better and have better specs/features. The FZ200 must be the best bridge camera for action photography (sports and wildlife)

i owned and used FZ30 and no regrets about having it... is has a superb macro capability, nice shots at every length of the zoom... but felt sorry about the fps.. very slow.. in FZ200 it has been raised and i think all should be the best... maybe u had a diff experience.thumbs up for u :)

The FZ200 is very overestimated.I own several zoom camera's from different manufactors and with all of them (some from 2003) I can make bright and sharp beautifull photo's.Until now I still have to figure out a way to make my first decent photo with my FZ200 which is sharp and bright. It is allmost impossible with the freaking noise it produces. Van Gogh could have learned from this cam, it produces paintings! I really tried from all poses in all weather and all possibillities (over 5000 pics), but I must conclude this cam is my first bad buy.For the zoom, don't bother unless you only want to spy without taking the photo. Yes zoom can be fun, but it doesn't produce usefull pictures. I had my doubts in front, going over 18X. And Boy was I right!I really regret I bought it and I presume the Canon SX50 will be much of the same.Too much megapixels and useless ISO will produce only noise. Even from ISO 160. Anyone want to buy it from me?

The F2.8 images are breathtaking sharp. The image stabilization amazing. The noise people refer to in FZ200 images I am not seeing. Is the FZ200 better than the FZ150? The F2.8 allows images FZ150 or other bridge cameras can't take. It has better ergonomics. The FZ150 has better higher F stop images. All in all the camera is a great value. F2.8 portraits outdoor look wonderful with beautiful bokeh. To those image takers who are experiencing noise, try resetting the settings, set A at F2.8 and fire away, noise will probably disappear. Avoid pixel peeping, this camera has a small sensor and will have more inherent noise than APS sensor.

It is the best and only 50X bridge camera. However, it is best for outdoor use. It's a great birding camera, best in class. For low light, not so good, the F stop starts too high to allow much zooming without use of flash or high ISO.

maybe it's the best superzoom camera on the market (exept for the price), but in my opinion on this kind of camera it's mandatory to use AA batteries.i'd never considered to buy a superzoom, i have never needed a 24X lens on a camera wich is bigger than a mirrorless but has a compact sensor.but if i try to see the piont to buy a superzoom i imagine someone that goes in a remote place and must stay as light as possible (or he could bring a panasonic gh+ a tele lens).in this situation it's ridiculous to force to have a spare battery in the pocket.

Think that you'd see the point if you tried one of the better superzooms yourself. Having a 25-600mm equivalent zoom (or 24-1200mm on the SX50) is very useful and great fun too, and the IQ you get will most often be more than 'good enough'. I'm using a superzoom as my main camera now, and my DSLRs and all the expensive lenses are just collecting dust (I do miss my UWA lens a bit though).

As AA batteries usually have much shorter life than the dedicated rechargeables, you would need to carry spare AA's with you. Also, the AA's are heavier and bulkier (which also makes the camera heavier and bulkier) so I always prefer a camera with a proper rechargeable battery. What I really want though is the option of charging via a USB connection so I can use mains, car, solar or external battery pack for charging.

i never tried a superzoom with a iq better than a standard compact. today many compacts has 15-20X zoom and they can fit in a pocket, you only loose the wiewfinder. i have a mirrorless, it weights around 350gr with the lens and if i need a 90-300 it weights another 200g.so i'd buy a superzoom only if i have to go in a place when i need at the same time a 24 and a 500mm and i can't change the lens... so i go and i have to take the spare battery or i run out of electricity! a modern AA lithium goes up to 2200m/Ah while most of the proper battery are between 600 and 1500m/Ah so the AA also have LONGER life.my old casio still takes good pics, but i had to replace it because the battery is gone and i can't buy another one.

Until I got a Canon DSLR I'd chosen all my cameras so I could use AA batteries. But now I'm weaned off my AAdiction. Lithium cells are incredibly impressive, and I buy cheap backup batteries... mainly because they hardly ever get used! :-)

Show me a camera with a 1/2.3" sensor and at least a 600mm reach that performs significantly better (i.e. proof using objective tests), and I'll give you props.

Otherwise, I have to wonder why the trolls come out any time Panasonic wins anything. This wouldn't happen if it were Nikon or Canon, and I have to tell you, that I like Panasonic cameras a lot more than Canon or Nikon.

I frankly don't understand this unwarranted bashing of anything other than Canikon when it's blatantly obvious that these two companies have been outclassed in a lot of compact camera categories by both Sony and Panasonic.

The two biggest areas where Panasonic outclasses both Canon and Nikon are in video and autofocus. Not to mention that Panasonic has managed to create perhaps the best lens ever on a bridge camera.

Oh yes...And Canons have issues in white clipping...And Fujis in fringing...And Sonys in rendering colors (mainly the green)...And Olys in their engines...And Nikons in speed to say the leastbut after all there is always something is better than the others...Isn't it?

I compared it to the new Nikon 7700. What's the problem with the Panny? Both JPEGs or Raws, the detail is missing, the noise is higher. The IQ of this camera is really horrible, unless DPR did something wrong with it. Or maybe the sensor here is much smaller, is that correct?

Barney, is this IQ really worth of an 80% score, even for a compact camera?

It's not just about IQ. A big part of the reason why the FZ200 got such a good score (and bear in mind that scoring is relative to product category, and the P7700 is in a different one) is that it has an excellent lens, is nice and quick, handles really well, and offers Raw mode.

rhlpetrus, it's a good bridge camera overall but unfortunately Pana's dropped the ball big time regarding the "new" sensor that's all, it's a noise machine even at ISO 200/good light, one has to find the way around it to minimize this issue and try to get an... ok pic. So yes, IQ suffers!!!It seems to have a lot of copy variation too, some folks post good pics but the majority can not replicate those results with same cond/settings. Go figure :)

First of all, the Nikon P7700 is in a different class. It has a larger sensor but much lower zoom range. By the same token, the Sony RX100 is in a different class to the P7700. It has a larger sensor but a lower zoom range. The larger sensor would be expected to produce a better image quality, but if you're in the market for a long zoom, the FZ200 may be a better choice.

Frankly, I don't understand the point of a camera like the P7700, G15, or LX7, because the RX100 has outclassed them all, and the zoom range isn't much lower.

But the FZ200 is a whole different category (600mm vs 200mm), and people should know better.

Furthermore, look at the video quality of the FZ200 and compare it to the P7700. There's no comparison. It's as good as any still camera on the market with a 672mm reach. The P7700 and G15 can't compete here.

Show me a camera with a 600mm reach or higher with this type of compact form factor that performs better. Absent that, please do some research before talking.

What makes you think it is the best when it has the worst feature on it? Using motorized superzoom camera is like eating cob corn on a stick. If I were to rate this toy, I will give it bronze-crap only for having a constant aperture. IQ is just average and has a toy-ish size and design.

Instead of individual camera reviews a 3-way shootout between the flagship superzooms; FZ200, SX50 and the XS1(with fixed sensor/firmware) would have been very interesting to read, ideally with side by side comparisons in studio and real life situations. Of course, dpr's studio comparison tool is very good for studio comparisons but real life photos would be far more revealing of what differences to expect in daily use of each camera.

This would also be something none of the other sites/blogs have attempted in an exhaustive format. In fact I would like to see the same type of comparisons done with the RX100/LX7/XZ-2/G1X/X10 or RX1/X100/DP2M etc.

I find it sad that Optical Zoom became the next megapixel race. I had the FZ20, and it was a great learner camera: 12x optical zoom, 5 MP, constant F2.8 aperture, and Image stabilization. Then came the FZ30 with a little more zoom and an aperture that darkened on the long end. Wrong way, I thought.

I drop out for a while and when I look up again, all these superzooms are coming with 26x, 30x, 36x optical zooms! I thought, just like the MP wars, this is targeted for people who don't know anything except more "X" is better (X = MP, optical zoom, etc.). 12x vs. 30x? 30x is better. 5mp vs 12mp? 12mp wins.

Of course these cameras have lens issues. Too much optical zoom. My mother in law bought one (26x Nikon) and took it to Ireland. Every zoomed pic she took looked like crap and she never could figure out why.

Fujifilm X-S1 is now (finally) great for still photography. Still horrendous for video and continuous focusing. The 26x range Fujinon zoom lens on the X-S1 is the cheapest constructed lens from the lowest quality materials that company had likely ever made.

Panny Lumix DMC-FZ200 is just okay for still pix, phenomenal for video. But it only has a minuscule 1/2.33-inch sensor, which is a loooong way down from the X-S1' 2/3rd-inch sensor size. After all, all top-end professional shoulder-mountable video camcorders also use 2/3rd-inch sensors, and nothing larger than 2/3rd inch.

What would be best for us is a clever combination of the two. Personally, since I like taking videos after dark and indoors in limited lighting scenarios, the 1/2.33-inch sensor size simply won't cut it. 2/3rd-inch or larger, please.

Bit surprised at a gold award for a camera that is noisy even at low ISOs.

For me, IQ is easily the most important thing in a camera. Other things matter of course but not as much as that. I'd be very reluctant to give any camera a gold award that doesn't even have good IQ at 100.

"Bit surprised at a gold award for a camera that is noisy even at low ISOs."

If you have to ask how much such lofty honors actually cost -- you probably cannot afford them, anyhow. :-))

Anyhow, FZ200 is great for videos, alas it would not be my first choice for still pix, however. Unfortunately, even for videography, the minuscule sensor size is drastically limits its usefulness. Sony RX100 may not have the zoom range of the FZ200, but at least you can shoot pretty decent videos with it after dark and indoors w/o a whole lot of light.

I ask everyone to go to the image compare page, select FZ200 JPEG in one window and FZ200 RAW in another window, now you will see clearly with your eyes that the JPEG is better by around %40 , much more resolution and better color and contrast, RAW images are really horrible compared to JPEG from the same camera, now I ask you to go to the conclusion page and for your surprise you see that they rated the RAW quality around %30 better than JPEG (much longer green line for RAW) this is where they mislead or brainwash you, and that is how they give golden award to some cameras.

It's meaningless to say that the JPEGs are better than the raw images from the same camera. After all, they have been derived from the raw files through in-camera raw conversion, which means that, if you shoot raw and post-process the images, it's possible to achieve at least as good IQ as the camera's JPEG engine. It all depends on your skills, and on which raw converter you use.

Ahem, DPReview specifically process their raw files with no noise reduction or colour processing to give a better idea of the base quality. Remember that the in-camera jpeg is rendered from exactly the same raw file, and by adjusting the settings you can make the raw image look like the jpeg (or better), but you can never process the jpeg to look like the raw file.

Also the raw file clearly has better fine detail, just compare the face on the banknote in raw and jpeg.

(The JPEG quality could never be rated higher than the RAW quality by any competent reviewer, as others have mentioned)who told you that? go to this page and see that they rated JPEG much more higher than RAW http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x10/20

An entry level DSLR like the D3200 also looks like a (small) toy, standing side by side with the X-S1. I don't see any bias towards Canon superzooms. No reviews of the the SX30 and SX40, and no testshots in the Studio comparison tool (but the SX50 has just been added, thanks for that).

I can shoot at full 720mm handheld at 1/20s and f/5.6 and still hit the shot without blur so do I always need than fancy f/2.8? Sure you can shoot at faster shutter speed and lower ISO but with X-S1, you can with higher ISO and slightly slower shutter speed and still produce better result than FZ200.

I could even agree, IF it where possible to know if the X-S1 you are buying has the new sensor or the fault one. Is there a way? There is a nice X10 on the shelf of a shop near where I work, but no way to know it - the shopkeeper doesn't even know there are two versions.

Why too concern on comparisons?It really means nothing when you take into account of the differences in price, specification, lens quality, sensor quality.... and lot others.If you like Fuji, then buy Fuji. If others like Canon or Nikon then they will buy what they like.

@Edmond: It is not about being concerned to push that comparison. FZ200 is not even superior than FZ150, SX40 and HS30 in IQ. It just that DPR is continuously ignoring to review the X-S1 when it should be so easy for them to get a sample from Fuji.

Edmond, JC already has an X-S1 - so he should be out shooting the cr@p out of it - and insist on ignoring the fundamental differences. For starters, the FZ200 is heavier than ideal, but the X-S1 is a whopping 2lb+ (!)... In other words, it's up in the weight class of hybrids w. superzooms, or even a Drebel with Tamrom 18-270.

A review of the X-S1 would be welcomed, but the conspiracies due to the lack of it is rather amusing - actually - more like annoying.

No matter what we are saying here, DPR makes an annual or so review (comparison test)the last 3 or 4 years with all bridge super zoom cams and guess... They got it all right...And yes... Pana and Canon usually take the awards...Usually Pana and that is right by all means...Fuji are great cams and innovative, but when I saw the purple fringing some two years ago in the cam of then days I was deeply disappointed...And I loved the specs of that cam, but one way or another it's all about a lens mostly when we talk about photography...

While having such lens is great, combined with that sensor its not that amazing. Problem is that if you enlarge sensor, you need bigger lens. But, if you do it clever way - big sensor, low mpix - then you could combine it with F4 lens and still have reasonably big lens.

But then, what stops customer to buy m4/3s and get some slower lens? :)

Fact is that superzooms are dying breed, which are closely followed by most point-n-shoot cams. In not so distant future, ppl will use mirrorless compact systems or cellphones. Era of regular point and shoots and superzooms is pretty much over..

If superzooms were to die, then we've actually lost something that can't be replaced by any other technology.

Have you ever heard of the concept of video? Name me anything better that the consumer can buy for quality video with this type of range and image stabilization.

Hint: you won't find anything.

What's going to replace it? DSLRs? The fact is that DSLRs neither have the range, the autofocus capability, nor the image stabilization of this type of camera.'Are we all going to be limited to smartphones for our video when compacts die out? Yeah, no loss there.

I keep hearing stuff like this on this forum, but the truth is that most members here live in a very limited world that doesn't recognize the utility of cameras like these. Sad.

I'm a bit tempted by this camera, many on the strength of it's very good video quality, but ultimately I think I'd prefer a camera like the Nikon P7700, where I'd sacrifice the large zoom range of the FZ200 for better IQ of the P7700.

Agree, the P7700 is the cream of compacts at this point, in terms of lens and IQ. Re VF, I use the Nikon V1 and only now and then need the VF. But agree it could be useful in some situations. But the point is, this camera has horrible IQ, JPEGs or RAWs.

I will be the first one to buy if the next model have :1 Touch screen2 Sensor size 1/1.7 "3 LCD Screen Resolution 921K4 Eye sensor to switch between EVF & LCD Display5 Increased internal memory to be more than 70 MB6 Reduce red eye problem & edit tool

Everything you all said is dead on, beside the 1/1.7 sensor. The camera is already heavy. Its not going to happen. We MIGHT see a 28-200mm F2.8 constant p7800 from nikon maybe....But it will not be anywhere near 25-600mm 2.8 this camera has.Personally i dont see how the internal memory plays any part in the camera. 70mb is plenty. You need to buy a card for it.....

There is no way to make a 25-600 2.8 lens cover a larger 1/1.7" sensor. The lens would be huge. The reason that most bridge super-zoom cameras use 1/2.3" sensor is the large over 5Xs crop factor makes designing small lenses easier.

If not already mentioned ... uh oh, proof reader fail :o "More expensive than other super zooms (though none have comparable lenses)" ..... should be "none have a comparable lens" :) Other than that, a nicely written piece :)

I find it interesting that Panasonic has finally spec'd out an ideal superzoom camera, but waited to do it until it was too late. It's a shame really because it's not like consumers haven't been asking for a constant aperture, RAW-capable superzoom forever. But now there are so many other options offering larger sensors with higher image quality that, at least for me, make this camera irrelevant.

I read an article this week that detailed the decline of the large Japanese consumer electronic companies like Sony, Panasonic, and Sharp. I have to wonder if their tendency to hold back features and offer consumers the absolute minimum they think they can get away with from one product generation to the next is part of the problem. Canon is the poster child for this marketing strategy and it drives me crazy.

What's the use of a nice constant aperture lens if IQ of sensor is so poor? Or is it the lens that is poor actually. Compare this camera to the Nikon P7700, jpeg or raw. That's a compact with IQ deserving some note.

That's true, and why I recommand some of my friends to buy the good FZ150 instead the FZ200, as the "improvement" is not dramatic while the FZ150 price has fallen dramatically (in Japan, it costs about half the price of a FZ200).

Oh, please ! Don't be so childish ! There are adults who are talking here.

By the way, I can see in your behaviour the one of a man who bought a camera but seems to look for a way to reassure himself because he is not certain he made the good choice. And don't tell us you are, for if it was the case, you would not prowl on a discussion page that interests primarily FZ200 potential buyers or anyone aiming to buy a superzoom from now to Christmas.

Thanks DPR for expediting the review, even if these collaborative efforts are 75% repetition of DCR. Better than nothing though! :)

I own the FZ200 and am absolutely thrilled with it. In some situations the IQ is not quite as good as the FZ35, but overall it's pictures and videos are excellent. And on occasion jaw-dropping!

Upon careful consideration of its main competitors, given its outstanding battery life, unmatched flexibility (60-1/4000 shutter, included hood, lens threads, HD high speed video, RAW burst etc), well there is no competition, really.

Of course the beautiful Leica glass is in itself is an engineering marvel. The 2.8 aperture should not be underestimated; there are many situations that other cameras just can't get the shot at all, or are forced into hand-shake territory or high ISO land...

As most experienced and intelligent photographers point out, a little (attractive) noise is not detrimental at all in the real world, especially when detail and colour are so well preserved.

In nearly all cases (early-build faulty units excepted), those complaining about noise either have unrealistic expectations, weren't using the camera properly, or live under bridges...

A simple search of the DPR forums quickly validates the incredible quality, flexibility and sheer fun this camera makes possible.

When I was researching cameras, I came across some truly mind-boggling astrophotography shots of constellations using the FZ200. Just wow!

Not true. We added almost all of our original preview of the FZ200 into this review, completely replaced the product images with our own photographs, shot in-house, and added scores of sample images. We also added Raw analysis, a side-by-side comparison showing the difference between F2.8 max aperture and F5.2, as well as resolution, noise/NR and image quality comparison samples and commentary. And we added the lion's part of the 48-image sample gallery, as well as a dynamically comparable score.

So Barney, what's up with all this attention on consumer cameras with micro-sized sensors, and you guys not giving any attention at all to the Fujifilm X-S1 which was introduced in 2011? Larger sensor, same zoom range, great speed and IQ... seems to be what everyone wants, and you guys seem to hope that it stays unnoticed. Something's not right!

@Timmbits - that was the model with the 'orbing' sensor. Unfortunately, that took so long for Fujifilm to sort out, and we didn't want to review a camera with a faulty sensor so it just ended up at the back of the queue. I promise to review the X-S2 :)

I purchased the FZ200 and used it for about a week, then returned the camera. I agree that it is a good camera and deserves a high score - for a small sensor super zoom. What I did not realize is that the image quality is not what I am used to. The APSC size sensor on my Canon 7D at 55mm, when enlarged to match the FZ200 was just as good IQ. So, I found that the super zoom doesn't really give any more reach than I already have. However, the primary reason I returned the camera is that the EVF lags too much to capture the moment of a moving target. I could never get the facial expression in the image I was seeing with my eye - even when prefocusing.

Here in Japan, the FZ200 is always avaible (and I didn't see any "sold out" period for this camera) while the SX50 has been sometimes unavaible as it seems to be a serious winner, to the point in some shops like the famous Bic Camera (distric of Yurakucho) it's even more expensive now than a week after its release.

Mirfak, not close friend. FZ200 images are not any better than last year sub $150 Canon compacts. Compare it to the lowest end one on here for studio comparison, 100HS. ISO200 and over goes to the Canon easily and that camera was under $120 last year. Panasonic compacts are not being pushed in the right way.

More people start buying their m4/3 then they might stop handicapping their compacts. They want you to say a small sensor just does not work even with constant F2.8. A couple other companies have done the same thing in the past couple years.

@gl2k. In what way is this camera a point and shoot? These small sensor cameras need a lot more intervention to get good results than any DSLR or CSC. Can you explain what you mean? Large sensor cameras with their greater dynamic range, more focusing points and more sophisticated exposure evaluation are much easier to use if you just want to point and shoot. I am interested in why you classify this camera as point and shoot?

@Greynerd, apart from having an iauto mode (I hope! I didn't check--most Panasonic cameras have them), I would consider any camera with this size sensor to be a point and shoot because the DOF is so deep. It doesn't mean that every shot will be in focus, but most of them will.

Deep DOF is usually criticized on these forums, but it is handy for street and documentary photography (and macro).

@bobbarber. DOF is only one factor amongst many and not a great problem with the standard kit lens especially compared to a fast fixed f2.8 long zoom camera like this. To call these cameras point and shoot just makes no sense as blown highlights and black shadows are as big a problem with these small sensor cameras as focus depth. In my experience the smaller the sensor the less point and shoot it is.

I see your point, but I wouldn't get too dramatic with the blown highlights and blocked shadows. I shoot m43 and compacts, and the compacts are definitely more point-and-shootish, even if the IQ of a properly done m43 shot is better. Focus is still the most important IQ parameter. A properly focused shot with blown highlights and blocked shadows can look fantastic, but a mis-focused shot with awesome dynamic range will look terrible no matter how you post-process it.

"That alone makes it an outstanding P&S that outclasses many mirrorless m4/3 and APS-C cameras."

Rubbish! One of the best aps-c sensors is the current Sony 16mp one used on several makers cameras not just Sony's and a quick comparison using the DPR comparison tool shows it to be at least 6 stops better than this camera. You can shoot the aps-c cameras at ISO 3200 and get comparable results to this camera at ISO 100. You don't even need to do that though as most long aps-c lenses are not 6 stops slower than F2.8. You typical F5.6 optic means ISO 400 is enough to match the Panasonic and at that ISO they absolutely trounce it at ISO 100.

I'm surprised that in such a review the lens performance is not systematically tested ; this is for me the most important aspect of the camera. How does it perform at 25, 35, 50, 100, 200, 500... Wide open and at optimal aperture? Resolution, contrast, astigmatism, bokeh, flare, distorsion, shading, you know... The resolution test or studio test at one focal lens and one aperture only tell us nothing there.

Why is the performance of a zoom lens relevant in a DSLR review? Since you can switch lenses, any discussion of lenses in any DSLR review is by definition nonsensical.

DSLR quality reviews should be performed with a single lens, preferably a high-quality 3rd party one with samples for each mfg. This allows one to test the camera, not the lens.

If one wants to review KIT lenses sold with DSLRs, do separate lens reviews on multiple cameras - or on one specimen of the brand reserved for all such reviews. The same kit lens is typically sold with many models.

For cameras with fixed lenses such as this FZ200 it makes sense to test the performance of its lens at its shortest , normal-lens equivalent, short- and long-tele and longest length. Perform the same test for all peer cameras at zoom settings providing the same angle of view - that will provide an objective measure of the system quality - which I would assume is what anyone wants to read.

Very true. I've read user reports that the lens is very soft unless closed down, at which point it gets closer to the performance of it's predecesor. Yet, it's bluntly stated in the review that it's an inherently better lens based on specs. Some might say that anyone expecting sharp results wide open is expecting too much, but that's how it's being advertised, so it would be good to know.

Good point from Olivier about the lens not being tested properly at various focal lengths and apertures, given the vast range of FLs in a superzoom camera.

Also good point from Shutterbug that this being a fixed lens camera, unlike a DSLR, its image quality does not depend on what lens is mounted and therefore should be tested properly and included in a review. I don't think it is practical or convenient to have a separate review at another time (if ever) just to test the lens comprehensively.

A complete review of the quality of the lens in a superzoom camera is a lot of work, and may be too much to expect from DPR. Interesting however, that DPR recently announced that they are going to do lens tests again.

Not a word about the instability of the video autofocus, when panning or zooming. This is a deal-buster for me. There seems to be little attention to video by this reviewer. The sample photos are a bit over-exposed. It's probably necessary to routinely adjust the EV down in sunlight.

I was wondering about video also. I just picked up a Sony HX200V based on it's video capabilities, which I think are better than those of the FZ200. This review puts the FZ ahead of the HX though. Bit of a head-scratcher, but then again that is not unusual for DPR reviews.

There are tons of videos from this camera on YouTube if you just search "Panasonic FZ200 Video Test". I watched a few and video quality, as is usually the case with Panasonic, looks very good. And I don't see it having major AF issues even in some of the more zoom happy videos.

The review said "Panasonic did almost everything right" and "With a few refinements in design and image quality, the camera would be darn close to perfect." So why did it only get 80%? If a camera that had "everything right" would get 100% then how does one get just 80% that has almost everything right and a lacking only "refinements" to be "darn close to perfect"?

Simple, DPR put a lot of emphasis on the IQ, and most users use Jpeg. The Jpeg engine isn't as good as it could be, saying things nicely. Panasonic have a history of being heavy handed on NR for Jpegs and that hasn't changed much.

It does have a fairly limited zoom for such a large body. Panasonic have given a wide aperture to offset this but this is by modern standards a travel zoom compact in a super zoom dslr sized body. It is not by any standards a super zoom anymore with 1.2 metre now attained by the SX50 though there will be no comparison as DPR have stopped testing the Canon equivalents since the SX20. DPR have tested the 1 metre Nikon P510 though so they should know what a super zoom is.

Video is just as important as stills to the average consumer, but 99% of the people here are stills only techies. It does a disservice to the average consumer when one of the top photographic sites is so heavily balanced toward stills.

I've tried the SX50 and found it way better than the FZ200 in IQ. I wonder how Canon did so well with a f3.4-6.5 lens against a superb f2.8 Leica lens. A one more proof that just a criterium is not enough to judge a camera and that every on-sheet specs must always be confirmed by a real-life experience.

Color Foto of Germany would redo the tests even for some older cameras once they update their test methodology and standard. And they publish the exact bench test results with numbers in almost every category judging the image quality.

The FZ200 is FAR behind on their compact camera standings list, with regards to the Canons, the old SX40HS beats SX50HS in many categories as well as overall score.

I suggest dpreview adopt the same approach otherwise these scores in percentage are all relative plus the gold and silver medals are all meaningless.

"The FZ200 is FAR behind on their compact camera standings list"... I can believe it easily as the FZ200 is an amazingly noisy camera for its generation/level of price, and it's even relatively worse than another average camera when one considers it features a miraculous f2.8 lens ! The image engine must be damn bad to achieve such poor results.

Good review and validates my own experience. We bought the Nikon P510 early in the summer about a week before the FZ200 was announced, and used it until early September. Glad Costco has a great return policy. As a lifelong Nikon user I am very pleased with what Panasonic has done with this camera:- the 1.2MPxl OVF should have had more prominent mention in this review. It is SO MUCH SHARPER than any other OVF I've seen.- The diopter correction in this camera is far superior to the P510's. Nice, crisp images in the EVF were one of my first impressions.- The constant F2.8 lens really helps with any telephoto situation.- I like Panasonic's implementation of the left-side manual focus lever much better than Nikon's (where you must set the camera to MF every time you want to use the lever). Unfortunately MF with any of this class of camera is not well advanced - I'm constantly focusing past the sharp point.- The RAW support is great.We have been very pleased with the camera overall.

@ Shutterbug, just curiou here, don't read me wrong pls. Now that the Canon SX50 is out and overall has better IQ than the FZ200 (at least at noise level), are you planning on bringing/exchanging it at Costco too? This is a "good way" to keep really updated, ain't it? Afterall there's a new cam at the block in every new... "season". Hum???

Note that while I wrote "OVF" at the beginning I wrote "EVF" later. Gimmea a break - everyone makes typos at some point. Unfortunately I don't see a way to edit my post.

I bought the Nikon at Costco while on a short vacation because I was impressed by the zoom specs and we had been thinking of a replacement for our three-year-old P80 anyway. After some use I realized its shortcomings - despite the long zoom reach the rest of its execution is sadly lacking. I mentioned Costco's generous return policy only because I'm relieved not to be stuck with the P510 until my next upgrade. To my knowledge Costco doesn't sell this Panasonic model so the point is moot anyway

I bought the Panasonic at Kenmore Camera, a local Seattle-area shop. They offered a generous return policy as well but I'm well past that now and have no intention of moving away from this camera for quite some time.

I agree with you. I've tried it and read a lot of reviews/opinions of owners on the web and most of them point out the noise that is well noticable at any ISO value, even at low ISO. Thus, many reviewers recommand future owners to stay at 100-800, 800 ISO being the limit of the acceptable.

I planned first to buy one, but I saddly gave up this idea for good: not a serious camera, if you ask me.

Wrong ! Even serious photographers need a second or a third camera for their "days-off" or for the days they don't want to walk around with 3kg of material handing to their neck. That's why they intend to look for the best compact/bridge they can find... and obviously it wasn't the FZ200. Didn't you know that ? So why do you bother us with your unbased opinion ? That's not serious my dear !

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.